Ethics in the self sort

My wife and I live very comfortably in a deeply blue area of a deeply blue state. For my entire life, I've lived in states that were somewhere between 'pretty blue' to 'crazy blue', and I've also always lived in/around cities whose politics skewed to the left of the state as a whole. And I find this a fairly comfortable place to be - while I'm not what most people around me would describe as politically 'progressive', my differences with Democratic Party policies and priorities tend to be rooted in technocratic rather than ethical objections. I might not like a policy because it's inefficient or counterproductive, but rarely do I find the basic policy itself actually unethical, so I'm happy to kibitz from the sidelines and live with it. In fact, for the last 2.5 years I've been quite happy to live in a place that took public health reasonably seriously and had the expertise on hand to make sure reasonable decisions and policies were put in place.

My wife's family lives in Texas. My in-laws have frequently made semi-serious suggestions that we should consider moving to be closer to them - our cost of living would dramatically decrease, we'd have family nearby to help out with childcare/etc., and the community they live in is very friendly and welcoming. Makes sense, right? Now, for years our response has been essentially rooted in our careers - despite what my in-laws might argue (and various articles they send us from time to time), the career opportunities available to me and my wife in our current locale dwarf those available in theirs, most particularly because of the highly specialized skills we have chosen to develop.

But in recent years, my response has also included a concern about the ethics of living in a state like Texas. Long before the current abortion challenges, there have been other state laws/policies that were extremely concerning - their treatment of migrants, several policies targeting LGBT folks (especially children), voting restrictions, gun laws, educational policy (and funding), restrictions on the right to protest, restrictions on common sense public health measures, etc. Many of these policies/laws are ones that I object to not only on technocratic grounds, but also ethical or moral ones - where I think the policy is not just wrongheaded, but actively wrong in its conception, goals, and execution. My father in law broadly shares many of these concerns, but argues that most of them wouldn't affect us directly - after all, we're reasonably well off, and could seek abortion care (in the unlikely event we needed one) out of state. We would live in a community where public carry of firearms is infrequent, where migrants are a fringe problem, where most of the kids go to private schools so don't need to worry about the public schools. And while he's broadly right, I am unmoved by this argument because policies that only affect others to their detriment can still be wrong, and why would I want to be a part of such a polity that supports such policies?

In fact, there are large portions of the United States that I would have to think carefully about before seriously considering moving there, despite the fact that they might be good fits for my family in other ways. Maybe this isn't so unusual, after all, given all that we've heard about the Big Sort in recent decades. But it started me thinking: People vote with their feet, right? And if lots of other like-minded people either refrain from moving to or actively leave states that are embracing these sorts of policies, aren't we making the situation worse?

We know that many political institutions in the US are minoritarian by design - notably the Senate and Electoral College. Higher degrees of political segregation - especially when coupled with a rural/urban divide - drives state-level polarization that further strengthens minoritarian positions (which currently favor the Republican Party). So, the real question here worth discussing is whether there is an ethical position to take that would embrace moving to a state that currently elects politicians who push for unethical policies in the hopes of reducing polarization and improving overall demographic imbalance? My knee jerk reaction is to say 'hell, no!' but I suspect that is part of why we got into this mess in the first place. Thoughts?

Less lefties moving to Texas is my vote. Stay in your nice deep blue enclave.

Lewk, all snark aside, I'm genuinely curious why you believe this is a good idea. I imagine one could describe me as a 'lefty' (though in my social context I'm definitely not), but do you really only want to be surrounded by people who agree 100% with you politically? Is this healthy for the political process, on either a local or national level? Is it healthy for the Texas economy - if, for example, knowledge workers (who I assume lean left overall) start to feel less and less welcome in Texas, that will not bode well for the state's long term competitiveness. Etc.

I rather like having the opportunity to engage with people who I disagree with politically. It allows me to examine my own assumptions, refine my thinking, and maybe change my mind (or theirs!) every now and again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Lewk, all snark aside, I'm genuinely curious why you believe this is a good idea. I imagine one could describe me as a 'lefty' (though in my social context I'm definitely not), but do you really only want to be surrounded by people who agree 100% with you politically? Is this healthy for the political process, on either a local or national level? Is it healthy for the Texas economy - if, for example, knowledge workers (who I assume lean left overall) start to feel less and less welcome in Texas, that will not bode well for the state's long term competitiveness. Etc.

I rather like having the opportunity to engage with people who I disagree with politically. It allows me to examine my own assumptions, refine my thinking, and maybe change my mind (or theirs!) every now and again.

---

Texas is purple right now, and a lot of immigration from blue states is occurring (fleeing their psycho covid measures and high cost of living and taxes). But these folks who come in bring their politics with them. Personally I like to put down roots and have no plans to ever leave, I would be annoyed if Texas became another California in the next couple of decades.

Lewk, aren't you more concerned about how your local GOP lost all sense of reality, still claiming for example the last election was stolen? I'd say that's a bigger problem for your state than 'lefties' moving in (also in turning the state blue since they are less electable).

Quote:

---

My father in law broadly shares many of these concerns, but argues that most of them wouldn't affect us directly

---

The entire point of having ethical and moral problems is that it's a concern even (or maybe especially) when they don't affect you.

Hah Wiggin I've had similar conversations/thoughts. Ultimately I think these things are more subjective than we'd like them to believe. Ultimately your existence in a place is as political as you want it to be, depending on the issue.

What if you flipped the question: what if this is a "grass seems browner" situation. Is there nothing in you local political climate or legislative roster that you don't deeply disagree with? I get frustrated as hell with "blue" political climates all the time. The government legalizes property theft. They ban nuclear power. The political climate could very well bring Ziomaps to my neighborhood soon. I'm still staying for reasons beyond those issues I find objectionable. And if I moved, I'm sure I'd be happy with some things and replace old gripes with new ones.

I think a more foundational question is: are there aspects of your location that truly aren't working out for you?

Bring the light to dark places. Donate some of the millions you'll save to organizations and initiatives that may be critical to doing good in the backward shithole state you'll be moving to. Just make sure it doesn't corrupt you and your kids, which is the usual outcome of this narrative arc. Obviously hanging out with the people who live there will drive you insane unless you can adjust to a new kind of social life.

At the broadest ethical level, it is probably more responsible to move and "prosyletize" your ethics. And at the the deepest, strongest ethical level, it's doing whatever is best for the children you're raising. In a combination of the two, whatever will most likely lead your children to share your ethics in their own ethically-active years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Lewk, aren't you more concerned about how your local GOP lost all sense of reality, still claiming for example the last election was stolen? I'd say that's a bigger problem for your state than 'lefties' moving in (also in turning the state blue since they are less electable).

---

The state GOP putting out a few virtue signaling lines isn't as impactful as soft on crime / high tax policies that could occur if Texas drifts blue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The state GOP putting out a few virtue signaling lines isn't as impactful as soft on crime / high tax policies that could occur if Texas drifts blue.

---

Sorry it looks like you misspelled "vice"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Sorry it looks like you misspelled "vice"

---

No its literally virtue signaling. They signal to their base that they are on their side but at the same time literally accomplish or do nothing. Its literally what virtue signaling is. Just like putting pronouns in bios, doesn't do anything but it signals to their base that they are virtuous as those in their in group would view as virtuous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

No its literally virtue signaling. They signal to their base that they are on their side but at the same time literally accomplish or do nothing. Its literally what virtue signaling is. Just like putting pronouns in bios, doesn't do anything but it signals to their base that they are virtuous as those in their in group would view as virtuous.

---

It's vice, gtfoh with that cultural relativism

What you're pondering is something that the US puts its servicemen through without a second thought. Stationing them and their families in locations, even stateside, that very much do not concern themselves with the rights and safety of its citizens or its democracy.

Aside from that, you have to consider if a move right now, in the middle of the US' surge of outdated conservatism is something you want to stress on yourself and your family. You would be well within your rights as an american to move and insert yourself into local politics and hold the ethics of the locals to the fire. I have a general rule of thumb that what it comes to politics that you vote with your heart at the local level and your head at the state and national level. But is that something you have the time and energy to do? Do you want to put that literal target on your family? Would you be able to not get involved when obvious abuses and shady shit come to light?

I've lived my entire life in a blue county in a purple state thats gerrymandered to hell and back so bad that its always gone red when its mattered. 30 years in a middleclass neighborhood outside a military base, 7 in a more remote dead 30 year old suburb of established families, and the past year in a more rural setting surrounded by farms managed by migrant families. Now what I'm about to share here could be all kinds of confirmation bias and whatnot, but these are my experiences dealing with the red that have made politics their entire personality in my island of blue.

1) "southern hospitality" is a joke full of hypocrisy so the old "back in my day" fuckers can blame others' lack of "manners" for their asshole behavior.
2) They are hypocrites on EVERYTHING, to the point that it will drive you crazy. Politics, HOAs, policing, etc. Its NIMBYs and FYGM all the way down.
3) They peaked early in life, think that means they are owed something, and blame "others" for why that isn't the case. This also leads to crazy jealousy when people who aren't "them" have earned or flaunt stuff that they dont have or cant achieve. Worst case was when my car was egged by a couple of rednecks in leaking 20 year old trucks.
4) Karens 24/7, they are walking victims of every slight, so they come across as needlessly aggressive. Especially true with the assholes in lifted trucks that can't drive. Once had a couple of boomers yell at me that "they (referring to themselves) must not matter anymore" because we had a bunch of posters hanging up of notable black figures, during black history month.
5) On aggression, they are currently going after everything that doesn't fit their twisted fucked up version of Capitalist Jesus. Libraries, schools, parks that lack pickleball, Gen Z. I had my car vandalized twice for an anti-Fox bumper sticker.

Now aside from how awful that side has become, you have to consider what that means for the dynamics of your extended family. One thing the south has no concept of is parental boundaries.

I've been in a similar situation (except I am moving) and this was definitely a consideration. I'm currently in a part of Georgia where race predicts political preferences for 90%. The large college population helped negate that somewhat. But there's something grating about most conversations with people of my race culimating in the other person going on a rant against Muslims, illegals, gays, etc.

With the Supreme Court sparking off a new culture war, I'm not sure how much you can maintain decent relations with neighbors who are on the other side of the political spectrum. I'm also worried that we're heading toward ever more intrusive civil rights violations by red states (too late for young women). At some point, you're going to have compromise your values more than you'd like if it's necessary for maintaining peace with those around you.

Having said that, I was on the verge of moving to an even redder state before I got an offer from a purple one. Your situation seems to be different in that you'd get at best a lateral career move from moving to Texas.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. One note I should clarify: my aforementioned career path arguments are still very much in force, so I am in no way considering a move to Texas. Rather, this discussion with my wife's family started me thinking about the broader ethical issue that many Americans might face in this kind of world. Can we sacrifice being part of a more moral polity in favor of trying to forestall further political polarization and bifurcation? That being said, I'll respond below as appropriate, but try to generalize the discussion as much as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

Hah Wiggin I've had similar conversations/thoughts. Ultimately I think these things are more subjective than we'd like them to believe. Ultimately your existence in a place is as political as you want it to be, depending on the issue.

What if you flipped the question: what if this is a "grass seems browner" situation. Is there nothing in you local political climate or legislative roster that you don't deeply disagree with? I get frustrated as hell with "blue" political climates all the time. The government legalizes property theft. They ban nuclear power. The political climate could very well bring Ziomaps to my neighborhood soon. I'm still staying for reasons beyond those issues I find objectionable. And if I moved, I'm sure I'd be happy with some things and replace old gripes with new ones.

I think a more foundational question is: are there aspects of your location that truly aren't working out for you?

---

You know, my preamble was pretty honest. I may grouse about my town/state being very on brand on occasion, but none of these complaints are something I disagree with on anything approaching the levels of the broad sweep of TX policies I'd be trading them for. I get annoyed at stupid crap, like drawn-out arguments on how to change traffic patterns while repaving a road to change the bike: parking:driving real estate when all I want them to do is fix the damned road. Or bullshit budgeting for the school district that requires frequent property tax overrides to pay for operating costs (rather than capital improvements, of which I am broadly supportive). Or hypocrisy about being super progressive then refusing to fire a town employee who targets another employee with racist abuse... or opposing affordable housing development despite state laws requiring it because of the unspoken reality that we don't want 'those types' in our precious town.

This kind of thing is frustrating and petty but I frankly doubt it would be much better in Texas - except there the racism is less veiled, the environmental arguments re: transportation use don't even exist, and the schools are badly underfunded either way.

Interesting that you mentioned the whole Ziomaps thing, that definitely raised a stir here. A whole bunch of people I know are on that list, under extremely strained logic of guilt by association kinda stuff (in this case, 'association' meaning being in any sort of leadership position in a Massachusetts Jewish organization). But while I'm no fan of that kind of antisemitism, is it really any better or worse than the Holy Land Foundation (which operated a few miles from where my wife grew up)? Or various forms of right wing antisemitism? This isn't intended to be whataboutism, I genuinely don't find one more or less palatable. A white supremacist gunman shot up my neighborhood growing up, intentionally targeting Jews going home from Friday night services - do I really care that he was right wing vs. the Palestinian terrorists that meant my schools had armed guards and restricted entry long before Columbine? Virulent antisemitism on either fringe shares eerily similar conspiratorial bents and it's awfully hard to distinguish them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

At the broadest ethical level, it is probably more responsible to move and "prosyletize" your ethics. And at the the deepest, strongest ethical level, it's doing whatever is best for the children you're raising. In a combination of the two, whatever will most likely lead your children to share your ethics in their own ethically-active years.

---

I wonder about proselytizing. I don't proselytize my fairly boring and technocratic-heavy politics in true-blue Massachusetts, why would I believe I'd be more likely to in reddish Texas? I have a number of friends and acquaintances who are elected members of state and local government (and higher ambitions), but frankly the whole thing often seems petty and dreadfully boring. I am politically engaged in that I make sure I'm informed before I vote, but I have little interest in doing more. I suspect that would be the case for the vast majority of people contemplating this kind of decision, no?

I do think the discussion around children is an interesting one: what does the effect of the surrounding environment vs. the home environment have on a child's development of a sense of ethics? I've noted that kids have an intense and innate sense of fairness that can readily be channeled into fairly sophisticated ethical worldviews that only need further facts to flesh out. Is it really so much at risk by being in a different environment? Maybe it is! On the other hand, keeping them in a wildly unrealistic affluent dyed-in-the-wool blue community might not be doing them any favors, either. In either case, a whole lot of parenting is involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

What you're pondering is something that the US puts its servicemen through without a second thought. Stationing them and their families in locations, even stateside, that very much do not concern themselves with the rights and safety of its citizens or its democracy.

Aside from that, you have to consider if a move right now, in the middle of the US' surge of outdated conservatism is something you want to stress on yourself and your family. You would be well within your rights as an american to move and insert yourself into local politics and hold the ethics of the locals to the fire. I have a general rule of thumb that what it comes to politics that you vote with your heart at the local level and your head at the state and national level. But is that something you have the time and energy to do? Do you want to put that literal target on your family? Would you be able to not get involved when obvious abuses and shady shit come to light?

I've lived my entire life in a blue county in a purple state thats gerrymandered to hell and back so bad that its always gone red when its mattered. 30 years in a middleclass neighborhood outside a military base, 7 in a more remote dead 30 year old suburb of established families, and the past year in a more rural setting surrounded by farms managed by migrant families. Now what I'm about to share here could be all kinds of confirmation bias and whatnot, but these are my experiences dealing with the red that have made politics their entire personality in my island of blue.

1) "southern hospitality" is a joke full of hypocrisy so the old "back in my day" fuckers can blame others' lack of "manners" for their asshole behavior.
2) They are hypocrites on EVERYTHING, to the point that it will drive you crazy. Politics, HOAs, policing, etc. Its NIMBYs and FYGM all the way down.
3) They peaked early in life, think that means they are owed something, and blame "others" for why that isn't the case. This also leads to crazy jealousy when people who aren't "them" have earned or flaunt stuff that they dont have or cant achieve. Worst case was when my car was egged by a couple of rednecks in leaking 20 year old trucks.
4) Karens 24/7, they are walking victims of every slight, so they come across as needlessly aggressive. Especially true with the assholes in lifted trucks that can't drive. Once had a couple of boomers yell at me that "they (referring to themselves) must not matter anymore" because we had a bunch of posters hanging up of notable black figures, during black history month.
5) On aggression, they are currently going after everything that doesn't fit their twisted fucked up version of Capitalist Jesus. Libraries, schools, parks that lack pickleball, Gen Z. I had my car vandalized twice for an anti-Fox bumper sticker.

Now aside from how awful that side has become, you have to consider what that means for the dynamics of your extended family. One thing the south has no concept of is parental boundaries.

---

You've certainly had quite a run, it sounds like. I have to say that what you describe does not jive all that much with the experiences I've had with (admittedly limited) visits to Texas. It might just be the milieu in which my wife's family lives, but while it's certainly a foreign cultural context to my upbringing, I have yet to see much of this kind of behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I've been in a similar situation (except I am moving) and this was definitely a consideration. I'm currently in a part of Georgia where race predicts political preferences for 90%. The large college population helped negate that somewhat. But there's something grating about most conversations with people of my race culimating in the other person going on a rant against Muslims, illegals, gays, etc.

With the Supreme Court sparking off a new culture war, I'm not sure how much you can maintain decent relations with neighbors who are on the other side of the political spectrum. I'm also worried that we're heading toward ever more intrusive civil rights violations by red states (too late for young women). At some point, you're going to have compromise your values more than you'd like if it's necessary for maintaining peace with those around you.

Having said that, I was on the verge of moving to an even redder state before I got an offer from a purple one. Your situation seems to be different in that you'd get at best a lateral career move from moving to Texas.

---

I live in a place that pretends non-white people don't really exist. And we certainly don't like it when we find out the median black household has a net worth of $8, or are reminded about a certain baseball team resisting integration because of a wildly racist owner (whose name is prominent around the ballpark today), or the embarrassingly late argument over busing, or... you get the point. But at least they vote for Democrats! :o

That being said, I wonder if part of this whole 'practical' issue about friction with neighbors is mitigated by the specific community in which one might live in a given state. If you're living with a bunch of transplants themselves (say, an academic or professional community), does this soften the blow compared to moving next to a Klansman? I just learned today that my wife's best friend growing up attended (and her parents still have leadership positions at) a Unitarian church that was central to getting women access to abortion on NM in the pre-Roe days, and has been ramping up their activities again since SB8 passed last year. That's obviously a wildly un-Texan thing to do (despite the fact that this is a venerable Texas institution), and proves that the heterogeneity inside a state can still allow one to find a comfortable community. It means we can in many ways discount the practical challenges you and OG raise, and instead focus on the core ethical issue: would it be ethical to participate in such a statewide polity that is actively engaged in unethical policies that are inimical to its citizenry... even if your neighbors also disagree with said policies? What kind of responsibility do we have to avoid such guilt by association?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

The state GOP putting out a few virtue signaling lines isn't as impactful as soft on crime / high tax policies that could occur if Texas drifts blue.

---

Ah yes, nothing says tough on crime like publicly defending people who assaulted cops, and having an attorney general who is indicted.

Given the events of the past year and a half, it's also pretty clear it's not just virtue signaling, they do support undermining democracy, committing fraud, and sedition. It's not just words, but also actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

You've certainly had quite a run, it sounds like. I have to say that what you describe does not jive all that much with the experiences I've had with (admittedly limited) visits to Texas. It might just be the milieu in which my wife's family lives, but while it's certainly a foreign cultural context to my upbringing, I have yet to see much of this kind of behavior.

---

Well my state does currently suffer under desantis, by far the most fascist of the current GOP darlings. He has certainly given the cowards on his side of politics some unwarranted and unearned courage. So I guess the question is... Do you want to risk Texas trying to one up us during US conservatism's death throws?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Would it be ethical to participate in such a statewide polity that is actively engaged in unethical policies that are inimical to its citizenry... even if your neighbors also disagree with said policies? What kind of responsibility do we have to avoid such guilt by association?

---

That's the problem with politics, if you want to ethically force change, you have to do it from within the system. Is that something you want to commit to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I wonder about proselytizing. I don't proselytize my fairly boring and technocratic-heavy politics in true-blue Massachusetts, why would I believe I'd be more likely to in reddish Texas? I have a number of friends and acquaintances who are elected members of state and local government (and higher ambitions), but frankly the whole thing often seems petty and dreadfully boring. I am politically engaged in that I make sure I'm informed before I vote, but I have little interest in doing more. I suspect that would be the case for the vast majority of people contemplating this kind of decision, no?

---

If you're not actively pushing your ethics than it doesn't much matter either way (except again, wrt raising kids). Your only impact, ethically, is from passive streams like what your taxes support. And that's really not at all about you as an ethical individual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Ah yes, nothing says tough on crime like publicly defending people who assaulted cops, and having an attorney general who is indicted.

---

But neither of those are crimes against property and that's the only thing that matters to Lewk. Everything else is ephemeral but property lasts.

A compromise solution would be to stay in a blue state but make a commitment to devote more time to arguing about politics on Facebook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

A compromise solution would be to stay in a blue state but make a commitment to devote more time to arguing about politics on Facebook.

---

I loled. Solid.

Sadly I have little time for either nowadays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Ah yes, nothing says tough on crime like publicly defending people who assaulted cops, and having an attorney general who is indicted.

Given the events of the past year and a half, it's also pretty clear it's not just virtue signaling, they do support undermining democracy, committing fraud, and sedition. It's not just words, but also actions.

---

Could you imagine how this conversation would be possible in The Netherlands? Of course you could come up with some Bible belt extremist places, but overall, that morality would come into choosing where in the country to live?

I think that the system in the USA is broken. What was set up as a mechanism to protect minorities has effectively been turned into a mechanism to tyrannically rule over the majority.

I mean, I wouldn't live in eg. Malta, or Poland, or Hungary, or (towards the end of its collapse), the UK :o and let's not forget pervasive culinary criminality in multiple EU nations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

Could you imagine how this conversation would be possible in The Netherlands? Of course you could come up with some Bible belt extremist places, but overall, that morality would come into choosing where in the country to live?

I think that the system in the USA is broken. What was set up as a mechanism to protect minorities has effectively been turned into a mechanism to tyrannically rule over the majority.

---

Well this kind of reasoning only makes sense if you have a district system which we don't, and for a small and relatively homogenous (when compared to the us) it's always less an issue.

If you'd look bigger at, say, the EU I can see similar arguments against moving to, say Hungary. But since it's a different country and you won't be able to vote, you stint be able to affect change there anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Well this kind of reasoning only makes sense if you have a district system which we don't, and for a small and relatively homogenous (when compared to the us) it's always less an issue.

If you'd look bigger at, say, the EU I can see similar arguments against moving to, say Hungary. But since it's a different country and you won't be able to vote, you stint be able to affect change there anyway.

---

I think we should thank God for sparing us this first past the post crap.